The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Lepidopterous]

Watch Pixar's Partysaurus Rex

[surfdude12]

Lolita (1962)

Film: 2/5

-ok you guys all know that i ADORE kubrick, but i did NOT like this film at all. those of you who have seen it, please read my spoilers and tell me if I'm off
-here is the main reason I didn't like it: I didn't care for ANYONE in the film

[Show spoiler]Mason and Seller's characters are both pedophiles. Lolita's mom is neglectful to her daughter and annoyingly clingly to men who treat her bad (Mason). Lolita is a %&#% pretending to be a lady

. Seriously, what am I missing? Why is this film liked by so many? Or perhaps it is not as liked as I think?
-I suppose the

[Show spoiler]character study of Mason is fascinating - seeing a man jumping between boyfriend and father role , second by second, but that is more sick than entertaining.

. I don't even know for sure if

[Show spoiler]Mason and Lolita hooked up? They hint at it, like "should we tell mom what we've done?" so it seems obvious, and I suppose they couldn't show it on screen, with the era (60's) being more conservative than now, but at the same time, wasn't it a bit ambiguous? For all we know, wasn't it a "Neverland" scenario? where they were just cuddling/sleeping/etc? Why wasn't Kubrick definitive?

-anyway, I suppose those are my thoughts on that - I only gave it 2 points because of the technical achievements.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

And then, I watched The Sixth Sense

[Show spoiler]
It's been fourteen years or so since I saw this (which would have been its initial DVD release). Back then, give all its hype and acclaim, I regarded this film as something of a masterpiece. It represented a type of quality filmmaking and storytelling that only men like Hitchcock seemed to master (and for a short time it seemed as though you just couldn't go wrong with M. Night Shyamalan; it's a shame that after his initial three films he went downhill and hit rock bottom with The Last Airbender ).

The story is pretty evenly-paced, but it is a slow-moving one. There's not a whole lot of conflict involved with this, but it's built pretty sturdily on the occasional paranormal fright scene and plenty of mystery.

What really matters here is the story, and it is perfectly constructed. It's most famous for its twist ending, but it's not just an arbitrary narrative trick; in this case, the whole movie was built around that twist, so that it holds up on multiple viewings and gives new meaning every time. With quality characters that you can actually care for, and some strong themes concerning people and their gifts, the rest of the story stands strongly on its own and has plenty of insight.

This film is immortalized with solid photography and editing. Acting is extremely delicate and subtle, with great nuanced performances by Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment. Writing shows some perchant for a little too much exposition (a standard complaint for most of Shyamalan's work, and it really only shows when compared to his later features), but is otherwise very good. This production doesn't have anything lavish, but it makes good use of its utilitarian sets, props, and costumes. Music is nice.

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Perfect | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: It's worth seeing at least once.

Did my dream inspire this viewing?

Every year I do something a little different for Halloween. This year I'm going through the first season of American Horror Story.

Question: Is this changing the show title each season thing a marketing trend? What happened to Spartacus: Season 1 or 2? Instead it's Spartacus: Vengeance or American Horror Story: Asylum. I guess it's more appealing? Is this a new thing? (Not a big TV show person, but I have my favorites--Rome, Nip/Tuck & Game of Thrones.)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Lolita (1962)

Film: 2/5

-ok you guys all know that i ADORE kubrick, but i did NOT like this film at all. those of you who have seen it, please read my spoilers and tell me if I'm off
-here is the main reason I didn't like it: I didn't care for ANYONE in the film

[Show spoiler]Mason and Seller's characters are both pedophiles. Lolita's mom is neglectful to her daughter and annoyingly clingly to men who treat her bad (Mason). Lolita is a %&#% pretending to be a lady

. Seriously, what am I missing? Why is this film liked by so many? Or perhaps it is not as liked as I think?

Well, if I remember the movie correctly, everything you've listed is spot-on. You're just the first to complain about it.

I think for most casual audiences, these types of issues you've brought up creates a certain character dynamic that people love (and something really edgy and taboo, which people also love...usually).

Originally Posted by surfdude12

-I suppose the

[Show spoiler]character study of Mason is fascinating - seeing a man jumping between boyfriend and father role , second by second, but that is more sick than entertaining.

. I don't even know for sure if

[Show spoiler]Mason and Lolita hooked up? They hint at it, like "should we tell mom what we've done?" so it seems obvious, and I suppose they couldn't show it on screen, with the era (60's) being more conservative than now, but at the same time, wasn't it a bit ambiguous? For all we know, wasn't it a "Neverland" scenario? where they were just cuddling/sleeping/etc? Why wasn't Kubrick definitive?

I don't think Kubrick would have been allowed to be that explicit back in the 60s. If he was, it probably would have been to the 60s what A Serbian Film is today.

There was a remake of Lolita in the 90s starring Jeremy Irons which had all-out sex scenes and stuff. I thought that was pretty sick.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

-anyway, I suppose those are my thoughts on that - I only gave it 2 points because of the technical achievements.

I gave it a 3.5/5, mostly for its gorgeous photography and stuff. I definitely call it one of Kubrick's lesser works.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Did my dream inspire this viewing?

Every year I do something a little different for Halloween. This year I'm going through the first season of American Horror Story.

Question: Is this changing the show title each season thing a marketing trend? What happened to Spartacus: Season 1 or 2? Instead it's Spartacus: Vengeance or American Horror Story: Asylum. I guess it's more appealing? Is this a new thing? (Not a big TV show person, but I have my favorites--Rome, Nip/Tuck & Game of Thrones.)

lol, it was purely a coincidence. It was one of those movies that's just been sitting around for years, crying to be watched again. Thankfully, it did not affect my dreams last night (...although I did have some odd dream where I was at a restaurant in some place that looked like the Speed Racer city, and we all had to sit outside... )

The TV show naming convention sounds like a new thing to me. Reminds me of some of the anime shows, like Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, GITS SAC 2ng Gig, GITS SAC Stand Alone Society, etc. Copycats...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

The Mist


5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Perfect | Film: Very Good)

Correct!

I think the scariest monster in the movie is....

[Show spoiler]

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Going on a documentary binge watching, fire up so good suggestions. I've got, thus far:

Solider Girls
The Leader, His Driver, And The Drivers Wife
Man on Wire
Don't Look Back

Put MARWENCOL at the top of the list man. Dont read anything about it. Just watch it.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Lolita (1962)

Film: 2/5

-ok you guys all know that i ADORE kubrick, but i did NOT like this film at all. those of you who have seen it, please read my spoilers and tell me if I'm off
-here is the main reason I didn't like it: I didn't care for ANYONE in the film

[Show spoiler]Mason and Seller's characters are both pedophiles. Lolita's mom is neglectful to her daughter and annoyingly clingly to men who treat her bad (Mason). Lolita is a %&#% pretending to be a lady

. Seriously, what am I missing? Why is this film liked by so many? Or perhaps it is not as liked as I think?
-I suppose the

[Show spoiler]character study of Mason is fascinating - seeing a man jumping between boyfriend and father role , second by second, but that is more sick than entertaining.

. I don't even know for sure if

[Show spoiler]Mason and Lolita hooked up? They hint at it, like "should we tell mom what we've done?" so it seems obvious, and I suppose they couldn't show it on screen, with the era (60's) being more conservative than now, but at the same time, wasn't it a bit ambiguous? For all we know, wasn't it a "Neverland" scenario? where they were just cuddling/sleeping/etc? Why wasn't Kubrick definitive?

-anyway, I suppose those are my thoughts on that - I only gave it 2 points because of the technical achievements.

Sue Lyon was 14 during filming.

Even if Kubrick had used a 19 year old that looked super young, the subject matter makes me feel uneasy and it seems like a weird source for "Entertainment".

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

This year I'm going through the first season of American Horror Story.

I'd very much like your opinion on that please.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Put MARWENCOL at the top of the list man. Dont read anything about it. Just watch it.

Got it written down, I'll see if I can get it as quick as possible.

I watched Solider Girls, but I zoned out about 30 mins from the end, it seemed good, it was just hitting a bit to repetitively for me.

[Al_The_Strange]

Killer Klowns From Outer Space

You've read this film's title correctly. This is a film about extraterrestrial clowns staging an invasion on the hapless population of the Earth. They have a lethal arsenal of popcorn and pies. They show exceptional combat skills as they use shadow puppets, gimmicks, and slapstick to gain the upper hand on their opponents. Their goal: to consume all humans by turning them into cotton candy!

If all of this sounds good to you, then this film might be right up your alley! It's pretty obvious from the film's title that this is not a film to be taken all that seriously; it's a self-conscious type of B-movie that revels in all things ridiculous. In spite of that, it makes its ideas work so that you can just roll with it. The film entertains, and it is pretty funny.

The plot is described above, and it is indeed silly. It does do a good job of taking the standard formula of other classic sci-fi films (such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or possibly The Blob) and spoofing it somewhat. The film is populated with a pretty flat brand of characters, but they are likable.

The film looks pretty decent; it has fine and dandy photography and editing. Acting is quite over-the-top, as is the writing. This production has some fake-looking sets and props, but the make-up and special effects are pretty slick. Music features some awesome rock music at times.

If you saw this film's title and thought it was stupid, well there's a chance that you might find this film stupid too. But it was never meant to be anything smart. If you can recognize and appreciate that, then this film is certainly recommended.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

This Blu-Ray looks pretty good; a bit dark at times, with maybe a little flicker at first, but it's plenty sharp and clean. Sound quality is alright.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 3/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Next greatest blind-buy: Apollo 18

You know a movie's bad when you're halfway through it, wondering when it'll end and when anything significant going to happen. I should have listened to all the bad reviews and not let the lure of a cheap Blu-Ray suck me into cinematic mediocrity. Frakk!

So far, this movie has very little going for it in terms of entertainment. I'd rather sit through a endless marathon of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, and Sunshine all back-to-back. Apollo 18's biggest crime is that it's extremely dry. Perhaps it's dried out on purpose to simulate a seemingly-authentic NASA environment, but heck, Apollo 13 had plenty of realism and still managed to be way more interesting than this. Another key reason why it's made this dry could be to instill tension and suspense, the way Alien did. Whatever the reason, however, I say it's no good excuse to make a film boring!

Contributing to the borefest is the qualities of the story, which are poor. And it's sad, because this story has potential. Yes, I am willing to invest my attention to moon landing conspiracy theories, and connecting that to a horror threat of some kind could make for an entertaining movie. In this case, however, everything about the story is weak. The plot structure is weak. The conflict is weak. The threat is weak. The characters are weak. It's almost as if the movie has no story to speak of, and as you may know, that's one of my biggest cinematic pet peeves of all time. Not to mention, I'm still not sure what the frakk is on the moon that's causing everybody to freak out! As much as everybody hates exposition, there is such a thing as having too little.

As for its qualities as a film, Apollo 18 uses that stylish-but-trashy "found footage" effect. It is successful at looking like actual NASA footage, but in spite of that, the film looks gaudy with its constant hand-held camera work, the constant light flickers, and the constant use of muted colors and low-rez footage. Fans of the genre may appreciate this type of work, but I find it fugly. Acting is...just...whatever. Writing is...just...whatever. This production does a fine job of replicating the right look and feel with the sets, props, and costumes. No music is used (at least not yet).

Yeah...this movie sucks. This shall be one of a very few films bestowed with the following unique rating:

1.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Poor | Story: Very Poor | Film: Poor)

Recommendation: I recommend flying into space and stepping out of the airlock without a suit before I recommend this film.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds about as real as it can.

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Well, if I remember the movie correctly, everything you've listed is spot-on. You're just the first to complain about it.

I think for most casual audiences, these types of issues you've brought up creates a certain character dynamic that people love (and something really edgy and taboo, which people also love...usually).

yeah, I know what you mean (about those themes/topics being edgy/taboo for some), but they just weren't for me. Its funny how that works - I find many other taboo/edgy stuff hugly entertaining, yet this is just not up my alley, I suppose. Its all good

I don't think Kubrick would have been allowed to be that explicit back in the 60s. If he was, it probably would have been to the 60s what A Serbian Film is today.

There was a remake of Lolita in the 90s starring Jeremy Irons which had all-out sex scenes and stuff. I thought that was pretty sick.

I gave it a 3.5/5, mostly for its gorgeous photography and stuff. I definitely call it one of Kubrick's lesser works.

wow, thanks for saving me from seeing the remake...yuck!

I agree that its Kubrick's lesser works. Easily, his least favorite of mine.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Sue Lyon was 14 during filming.

Even if Kubrick had used a 19 year old that looked super young, the subject matter makes me feel uneasy and it seems like a weird source for "Entertainment".

OMG I was thinking throughout the film "I bet Squid HATES this"

That's crazy - she didn't look 14 at all. I agree 100% on your second point.

The film should have been re-titled:

[Show spoiler]Battle of the Pedophiles. 2 dudes fighting over a child? Beyond sick. The last sequence of one pedophile hunting down the other pedophile made me just have one wish: I hope a facking dog runs into the house and rips both of their $#% off

.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Next greatest blind-buy: Apollo 18

You know a movie's bad when you're halfway through it, wondering when it'll end and when anything significant going to happen. I should have listened to all the bad reviews and not let the lure of a cheap Blu-Ray suck me into cinematic mediocrity. Frakk!

[Show spoiler]So far, this movie has very little going for it in terms of entertainment. I'd rather sit through a endless marathon of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, and Sunshine all back-to-back. Apollo 18's biggest crime is that it's extremely dry. Perhaps it's dried out on purpose to simulate a seemingly-authentic NASA environment, but heck, Apollo 13 had plenty of realism and still managed to be way more interesting than this. Another key reason why it's made this dry could be to instill tension and suspense, the way Alien did. Whatever the reason, however, I say it's no good excuse to make a film boring!

Contributing to the borefest is the qualities of the story, which are poor. And it's sad, because this story has potential. Yes, I am willing to invest my attention to moon landing conspiracy theories, and connecting that to a horror threat of some kind could make for an entertaining movie. In this case, however, everything about the story is weak. The plot structure is weak. The conflict is weak. The threat is weak. The characters are weak. It's almost as if the movie has no story to speak of, and as you may know, that's one of my biggest cinematic pet peeves of all time. Not to mention, I'm still not sure what the frakk is on the moon that's causing everybody to freak out! As much as everybody hates exposition, there is such a thing as having too little.

As for its qualities as a film, Apollo 18 uses that stylish-but-trashy "found footage" effect. It is successful at looking like actual NASA footage, but in spite of that, the film looks gaudy with its constant hand-held camera work, the constant light flickers, and the constant use of muted colors and low-rez footage. Fans of the genre may appreciate this type of work, but I find it fugly. Acting is...just...whatever. Writing is...just...whatever. This production does a fine job of replicating the right look and feel with the sets, props, and costumes. No music is used (at least not yet).

Yeah...this movie sucks. This shall be one of a very few films bestowed with the following unique rating:

1.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Poor | Story: Very Poor | Film: Poor)

Recommendation: I recommend flying into space and stepping out of the airlock without a suit before I recommend this film.

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds about as real as it can.

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 4.5/5

Saw that just last Friday and yes I wasn't that impress by it either

[jvince]

The Circus (1928)
dir. Charlie Chaplin

The Good: Non-stop barrage of hilarious gags. Love the entire police chase, the automaton scene, Chaplin's little dance, the running gag involving a donkey (which had me in stitches), the "bird shit", the fish wiping, the pill, the lion cage, the magic scenes, and of course, the climactic tightrope scene (and those pesky little monkeys). Wonderful score. Very tight; not a second feels dull. Surprisingly bittersweet ending to such a lighthearted film.

The Bad: Zip, zilch, nada.

The Bottom Line: An absolute delight from start to finish, The Circus is by far The Tramp's most fun and funniest film, and the perfect starting point for Chaplin neophytes. This timeless yet underrated gem comes highly recommended.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jvince

The Circus (1928)
dir. Charlie Chaplin

[Show spoiler]

The Good: Non-stop barrage of hilarious gags. Love the entire police chase, the automaton scene, Chaplin's little dance, the running gag involving a donkey (which had me in stitches), the "bird shit", the fish wiping, the pill, the lion cage, the magic scenes, and of course, the climactic tightrope scene (and those pesky little monkeys). Wonderful score. Very tight; not a second feels dull. Surprisingly bittersweet ending to such a lighthearted film.

The Bad: Zip, zilch, nada.

The Bottom Line: An absolute delight from start to finish, The Circus is by far The Tramp's most fun and funniest film, and the perfect starting point for Chaplin neophytes. This timeless yet underrated gem comes highly recommended.

I definitely will be checking this out! I can't believe I haven't seen it. I love Chaplin's films. I grew up watching them on VHS all the time.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I'd very much like your opinion on that please.

Only two episodes in, but I'm digging it. Very psychological. I'll keep you updated.

[P@t_Mtl]

Silent Running (1972)

Directed by : Douglas Trumbull
Starring : Bruce Dern, Cliff Potts, Ron Rifkin
Format : HDTV

Story : Sometime in the Earth's future, all vegetation is gone and what is left is preserve on space freighters tended by crews. When the order come's to abandon the freighters and destroy everything, crewmen Loweel (Dern) refuse to obey and kill of the other crew members and stage an escape pretending to have some sort of mechanical emergency. Re-programing onboard service robots to teach them how to take care of the vegeation over the following weeks, Loweel is surprise to hear that a rescue is actually coming for him and what he actually done will now be discovered. Sending off the last remaining vegetation drone along with service robot 1 to the safaety of space, Loweel destroy the ship.

Comments : Made more then 40 years ago, it,s a bit funny and sad that this movie now sort of matches the problems we face over the planet's enviroment. I am sure the character of Loweel must have look like a serious out of his mind radical to audiences of 1972. Yet today we may be able to see in a different light. The movie is not too preachy for it's sake and while slow in certain places still very interesting. If you have never seen it I recommend that you do.

Ratings : 4/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I have a harder time with 2046 and in general most people like that one.

I can definitely see why. 2046 is a lot to absorb.

I think In The Mood For Love can be a little weird for western audiences because of the fact that nothing happens Most people don't expect that, they would think "it just does not make sense that they have all these feelings but they yet remain faithful to their own spouses who are cheating". It's one of the reason I enjoy Asian cinema so much, they don't always follow the rules, they do the unexpected. Don't always expect a happy ending cause in life that doesn't always happen.

Well put. I can't wait to revisit this next month.